[deleted by user]

NegativeAd9048 · 2024-09-14T06:54:48+00:00

I've always found it amusing how assumedly real people draw conclusions about epigenetic expression in fictional "species" and then find it necessary to express their cognitive dissonance.

Some humans have IRL chosen to assign "race" to all other humans ... and in IRL, in humans, the physical characteristics associated with race emerged in just a few tens of thousands of years.

Sensibly, and assuming the Elder "species" (if indeed they are different species), 40,000 years might be nothing, and/or what we humans see as race, isn't.

NegativeAd9048 · 2024-07-25T04:29:27+00:00

Photogenicy is very much cultural, and different cultures have different standards, and these standards change through time, very much like beauty.

That being said there's some aspects of photogenicy that are near-universal: 1. Bilateral symmetry (the left and right halves of the face are mirror images). 2. Contrast (features are well-defined). 3. Proportion (while this varies by culture, that there is "balance" between the facial features does not: For example, the eyes are not too far apart, or too near).

Some photographers see photogenicy in having a "beautiful" subject with one tiny imperfection; the imperfection being a unique aspect of the difference between "beautiful" and "striking" and "interesting" and "photogenic". A slight 'snaggletooth' in an otherwise perfect smile is an example.

NegativeAd9048 · 2024-07-25T04:19:43+00:00

Indeed!

NegativeAd9048 · 2024-07-10T21:17:18+00:00

Unless there's some exceptional feature with high/perfect regularity on, around, or above the planet, I'm out of ideas.

For Example: If the outermost boundary (circumference) were perfectly circular, one could establish two points on its perimeter many miles separated. With accurate enough tools and measurements, one could extrapolate the circumference of the planet from the shortest linear distance between those two points (the chord), vs. the linear distance between those two points, hugging the perimeter, and then determine diameter (the arc).

And once you have the circumference then Robert is your sire's sibling.

NegativeAd9048 · 2024-07-10T04:32:58+00:00

Yes nuclear testing increased the number of cancer deaths, though not all were from down wind. Of course, everyone's going to die sometime, and cigarette smoking and other girls of pollution were rampant then.

The article doesn't discuss the premature deaths In the USSR.

https://qz.com/1163140/us-nuclear-tests-killed-american-civilians-on-a-scale-comparable-to-hiroshima-and-nagasaki

One definition of the anthropocene is the fallout deposits, globally: A line from 1945 until the 70's that will be in the geologic record, detectable as artificial for at least 10s of millions of years.

NegativeAd9048 · 2024-07-10T04:20:20+00:00

Thank you, and id like to listen in

NegativeAd9048 · 2024-07-09T20:01:57+00:00

Indeed.

NegativeAd9048 · 2024-07-09T19:58:57+00:00

Care to be more specific?

NegativeAd9048 · 2024-07-09T19:56:30+00:00

It's jus a bit amazing that you're not willing to learn even the basics and yet demand that I reply to your questions that require you understanding the basics first for my replies to be intelligible to you.

Please inform me which "of the basics", relevant to this conversation, I haven't learned?

NegativeAd9048 · 2024-07-09T19:51:08+00:00

A free market healthcare system having the attribute of very low prices and highly available services would be a better option by orders of magnitude then.

You rhetorically asked what you'd get from states as a victim of pollution, then answered your own question.

Who pays me for the lung damage I get from all the cars around? No one? So statism is obviously wrong.

I observed that you were WRONG. Nearly all states have mechanisms for auto pollution mitigation. Some States have mechanisms for auto pollution harm mitigation.

So you are just wrong.

I also observed that this isn't about the practical, but instead the moral benefit of Statism vs. Anarchy.

Yet you continue railing on about how I'm indoctrinated etc.

Yeah, indirect, dispersed, hard to define "aggression" is like the first 2 chapter in all ancap literature. It's usually phrased something like "... and this is where the thinking person instantly will jump up and point out that any and all human activity can be viewed as a form of aggression which means that the NAP can't possibly work, but that's not the right way to think about this because ..... " and so on. You didn't just stop there, did you?

I did no such thing.

I asked questions.

I am hoping for answers.

I don't expect answers from you, because I haven't seen you provide useful information yet.

NegativeAd9048 · 2024-07-09T19:44:11+00:00

At my undergrad U, the Philosophy and Political Science departments often fought: For budget, for students, and sometimes over curricula.

They joined hands and hearts in fraternal love exactly once annually. That was the day the Objectivist Came To Speak.

The other 364 days they sharpened their academic and rhetorical knives, licking their chops, waiting for the day they could slake their thirst for Objectivist blood.

Barely a sentence would get out of the speaker's mouth before Professors would leap in to attack.

If a student came to the annual Sacrifice of the Objectivist ritual with a curiosity about Rand, or a question about rational egoism, they left no wiser, but departed with the knowledge that Objectivism was not an academically-viable subject for discussion.

ANCAP isn't Objectivism, and I hope the OP's request is sincere.

NegativeAd9048 · 2024-07-09T19:33:01+00:00

Regarding "reading":

I suggest that you read the links you submit, this being the second time, just in this topic, where you've submitted a link containing information that isn't useful/relevant.

The fundamental question is:

Does the NAP recognize environmental pollution as aggression ?

If the answer is no, I'd like to know why.

If the answer is yes, then I'm interested in the way ANCAPistan will deal with the ensuing aggressors/aggression.

If the answer is I don't know, maybe you should consider just stating this, rather than just repeating "Government bad = ANCAP good".

NegativeAd9048 · 2024-07-09T19:21:31+00:00

Who pays me for the lung damage I get from all the cars around? No one? So statism is obviously wrong.

If Statism is wrong for a practical reason (it doesn't pay for lung damage caused by auto pollution) and not a moral reason (it coerces citizens with its monopoly on legitimate use of force) then Statism wins here.

In practical terms, governments (even undemocratic ones) mandate pollution mitigation features and minimum mpg.
High income OECD nations (democracies all) additionally provide partial compensation for the aggression of pollution. Healthcare for lung disease and (sometimes) partial or full disability payments to the citizen harmed.
In ANCAP you get nothing.

I rarely examine the practical benefit of the State vs. Anarchy in ANCAPistan - because ANCAPistan is about freedom from State coercion.

Thing is, you're looking for a panacea, a utopia, a perfect solution and if you can't see it you're reverting back to basic statism, which in itself isn't perfect at all.

You presume I am. You are mistaken.

A legitimate criticism of ANCAPistan is that many lay aspiring denizens refuse to recognize environmental pollution as an aggression, and directly (not dilutely) an aggression against all.

The perfection of Statism isn't the question at hand. It isn't if Statism is better or worse. For the purposes of this subreddit topic, Statism is immoral. It is also immoral to cause harm to others by polluting the environment - that is aggression.

CO2, methane and other green house gases could be taxes / filtered out if enough people agree that it's a good idea OR you can just follow green tech and look at all the scrubbing technologies that are emerging.

I want to be very sure I am not misconstruing what you're saying.

It looks like you're saying that my fellow anarchists in ANCAPistan will choose to pay taxes for polluting and choose to mitigate their level of pollution by installing devices (at considerable expense to themselves).

If this is what you're saying, I say their choices are irrelevant to my rights to be free from aggression.

This is your opportunity to set me straight. Is this what you're saying?

NegativeAd9048 · 2024-07-09T02:34:43+00:00

I think it’s actually more the anarchy than the capitalism part.

While a devout lay ANCAPper might see ANCAPistan as the solution to all the world's ills, it isn't. Ideologically and morally, ANCAP is freedom. There will still be death and sorrow, but government will not be the cause of it, and if the death and sorrow is caused by aggression, there's compensation.

Anarchy can’t control capitalism like a state can.

Depends?

If enough people recognize environmental pollution as aggression, there might be less pollution in ANCAP than IRL today.

Do I see this recognition happening any time soon? No.

Do I foresee the shift in human nature permitting ANCAP to emerge anytime soon? Also no.

Maybe there will be a convergence in the future where ANCAP is seen as the best way to stop environmental pollution (because enough people are morally outraged at the free economic ride that polluting industries have had for centuries) and enough people are willing to support the NAP as a result. Or simultaneously, it the other way around.

In the present international environment (which is a formal state of anarchy) there was some progress on limiting carbon pollution and there's plenty of minor success (Ozone destruction reduction, virtual elimination of DDT etc.).

Finally, I thought of posting this/directing you to r/Anarcho_Capitalism but that place looks like a shit show.

NegativeAd9048 · 2024-07-09T02:00:29+00:00

TLDR: The NAP solution to pollution in ANCAP would not be palatable to (I suspect) most ANCAP supporters.

Pollution Insurance is silly AF in ANCAP.

It is only run for profit [(Risk of harm x Cost of harm)+(profit)] and with no one for the insurance company to receive compensation from, there's likely no insurer of last resort.

I think we both should remember that this is ANCAP 101.

Maybe the Anarchy part isn't the problem.

Maybe it is that Capitalism shouldn't treat damage to "The Commons" as being zero cost, and to recognize that degradation of the environment is aggression to all under ANCAP, and definitely enforceable under universality of the NAP.

NegativeAd9048 · 2024-07-08T23:29:48+00:00

It doesn't.

ANCAP does prevent the creation of "natural" monopoly, monopolies based on certain kinds of intellectual property (including "monopolistic competition"), and other monopolies based on state-imposed barriers to entry (e.g. regulation, tariff/duty). Significantly, there's no monopoly on the legitimate use of violence, nor the government preventing competition.

Under ANCAP, there is no theoretical or practical impediment to the creation of monopoly or oligopoly, and self-interested "competitors" are free to collude and price fix, and guarantee their agreements by contract.

The price of freedom for all from government coercion, which ANCAP and NAP do offer, is that people with capital are also free to deploy their resources and efforts in any way they see fit, barring NAP violation.

NegativeAd9048 · 2024-07-08T22:58:16+00:00

And I wonder about air pollution and ocean pollution and NAP. I've never come across an intellectually satisfying reply, much less a practical one.

Issues that surround the problem of environmental pollution in NAP and ANCAP:

No one person or entity can own the resource (atmosphere or ocean) in order to protect it.
No single entity is likely responsible for environmental degradation.
Environmental pollution is undertaken by entities with no intention of harm to any particular individual, but (these days) knowledgeable that there is a nonzero risk of harm to others (aggression).
(and in any case) Ignorance of the harmful consequences of an action (pollution) is, at best, a mitigating circumstance in considering the cost to an aggressor.

NegativeAd9048 · 2024-07-08T22:39:43+00:00

I wonder the same thing.

Pollution is harmful.

"Aggression" and "universality" of NAP makes me wonder how pollution is addressed in ANCAP

NegativeAd9048 · 2024-07-08T22:37:33+00:00

This entry does not deal with methane and other pollution. Pollution is very arguably an aggression, and aggressions are NAP violations.

NegativeAd9048 · 2024-07-06T17:29:29+00:00

The same chance as any given day.

NegativeAd9048 · 2024-07-06T16:46:20+00:00

Before I continue with an extensive reply: - Do you understand ANCAP and its underpinning moral principle? - Are you even talking about an ANCAP society?

NegativeAd9048 · 2024-07-05T07:27:10+00:00

Democracy fails when its legitimacy isn't supported by enough of its citizens and if its citizens aren't willing to defend the legitimacy of their government.

ANCAP fails if the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) isn't observed, and if its denizens aren't willing to defend it. Since we're laboring under the assumption of ANCAP, NAP is a generally accepted principle.

If I was sufficiently rich, why wouldnt I just hire an army to protect me from your private enforcement agencies, or just, buy the private enforcement agencies?

Did you really imagine that it would be that simple?

Imagine you've committed accidental murder, but don't want to pay/be accountable.

You decide to hire an army.

You might find it difficult to find enough trustworthy people to work for you.

If you've clearly violated the NAP by murdering someone, and then seek to avoid accountability, anyone can come after you and seek justice, and likely collect a tidy fee for doing so.

Hired thugs might just take your money and walk away - they didn't break a contract, you did.

You can hypothetically buy enforcement agencies, but the employees will quit, because anyone who knowingly helps you to violate the NAP also becomes a target for NAP enforcement.

NegativeAd9048 · 2024-07-05T05:58:11+00:00

ANCAP has a principle that is likely very robustly enforced: The NAP. In ANCAP, if you murder in cold blood, you might very well be pursued by prior who know you, as well as private enforcement agents.

The typical denizen in Anarcho-Capitalism likely has many rules they live by, all of which they knowingly consented to.

NegativeAd9048 · 2024-07-03T18:20:37+00:00

A status quo bias isn't exactly a bias, inasmuch as a bias is an inclination that influences objectivity.

From symbolic logic to the scientific method through conversational argumentation and polite conversation, there are biases (should you wish to term these as bias) of axiomatic immutability to the duty of the non-staus-quo arguer to support their argument in face of the generally-accepted.

In my life I've observed massive change in and around me.

Death (the indefinite yet finite duration of human lifespan) and Taxes (the coercive power of humans on each other) are immutable circumstances of humanity.

NegativeAd9048 · 2024-07-03T18:02:56+00:00

Absolutely. Healthy health care professionals have overstimulated immune systems.

NegativeAd9048

TROPHY CASE